Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs

    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs

    • Joe on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Phil on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Lee on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Car accident claim lawyers on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Andrew MacKie-Mason on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • G. Calamita on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Howard Wasserman on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Captured CPSC, Road Show Edition

posted by Frank Pasquale

nord.jpgThe last time I blogged about Nancy Nord, head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, I thought it would be the last. Certainly anyone caught in the middle of escalating product recalls and public outcry over toy safety would be responsive to efforts to improve the CPSC’s budget and staffing. Consider the following report:

Government statistics show that imports have increased by 338 percent since 1974, the year the Consumer Product Safety Commission was created. Yet the budget for that agency today is less than half what is was in that year. In effect, we have been disarming our ability to protect ourselves, even as the need to do so has been soaring.

chinaimports.jpgBut I was wrong. Nord has instead told Congress not to give the CPSC more funding and enforcement authority. The Washington Post now suggests some reasons why: she and “her predecessor have taken dozens of trips at the expense of the toy, appliance and children’s furniture industries and others they regulate.” Hilton Head, Barcelona, Orlando–ahh, the difficult life of the regulator:

In February, for example, Nord accepted more than $2,000 in travel and accommodations from the Defense Research Institute to attend its meeting in New Orleans on “product litigation trends,” according to her report. The institute is made up of more than 20,000 corporate defense lawyers. In 2004, [her predecessor] Stratton attended the group’s meeting in Barcelona, at a cost to the group of $915 for his hotel room.

The guiding “philosophy” behind the current CPSC appears to be a belief in self-regulation: companies themselves should take primary responsibility for safety. My question is whether, after a case like MVMA v. State Farm, an agency can use a political commitment to libertarianism to trump its extant legal and scientific obligations to protect the public. For example, what if the CPSC just decided that any penalty of, say, more than $100 for death-causing injuries would ultimately be counterproductive because it would discourage reporting? Should courts defer to such “agency expertise”? I’d always hoped such questions would remain mere bizarre hypotheticals, but we appear to be in a world where their relevance increases by the day.


 November 2, 2007 at 7:32 am   Posted in: Administrative Law   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (7)

  1. Daniel Goldberg - November 2, 2007 at 10:52 am

    It is truly astonishing to me that anyone who takes the time to seriously familiarize themselves with the history of health policy and consumer safety over the last 100 years could remotely believe that self-regulation is an effective means of preserving public safety at a morally acceptable level.

    It is historically irresponsible to maintain this. Of course, an argument can be made, as an argument can be made on virtually anything. But the weight of history is heavily stacked against such a claim.

  2. Frank - November 2, 2007 at 11:38 am

    I think a big part of the libertarian dream here is that the internet allows “perfect information” about the relevant companies. In other words, once once person gets sick from Anon-a-corp’s spinach, they’ll tell their story on the web and everyone will hear about it and avoid Anon-a-corp. Or, more plausibly, some information gathering company will monitor the others.

    I think libertarians might also say that everyone should be able to make a price-safety trade off. So, for example, poor families should be able to buy more, cheaper food from Anon-a-corp due to its poor reputation, and thereby can save money by risking their health. (Much less of a tax burden than food stamps!) I think they’d take the model of getting paid more for a difficult or dangerous job into all walks of life.

    As for me, I’d rather have a government that sets basic standards. And that’s one reason why the EU is becoming the de facto world standard setter:

    http://www.economist.com/world/europe/

    displaystory.cfm?story_id=9832900&CFID=19230555&CFTOKEN=13130608

  3. Jeff - November 2, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    I was at a wedding with some workers for Fisher-Price this weekend, and they were bemoaning the “unnecessary recalls” and what it was doing to there bottom line. The did admit however that they are experiencing near record profits.

    I think one of the principles of libertarians, in additional to the dream of “perfectly informed consumers”, is full and equal access to the court system. Companies would be incentivized to create safer products out of fiscal responsibility to avoid liability. Unfortunately , I would imagine it is frequently those people who are forced to use the riskiest/lowest cost products are also those people with the least access to the courts.

  4. merevaudevillian - November 2, 2007 at 1:16 pm

    Isn’t the word “political” doing a lot of work in this sentence, as in, “a political commitment to libertarianism to trump its extant legal and scientific obligations to protect the public”? Unless we deem libertarianism solely political rather than, say, economic, we could just as easily reconstruct the sentence to read, “a political commitment to protectionism to trump its extant economic and empirical obligations to maximize market efficiency.”

    Alternatively, the market does seem to be solving this issues, or at least it’s beginning to. A recent Consumer Reports survey shows that 89% of consumers are aware of the recalls, and of them, 30% will purchase fewer toys and 30% will not purchase toys made in China. Given the “escalating product recalls,” it is curious that (1) most people know about them, but (2) that most still think the risks are not significant enough to change behavior, though (3) a substantial minority are changing their behavior in a way that might require the market to make some alterations or risk losing a large portion of sales. 30%, after all, while still a minority, would really harm toy producers if they fail to take action on their own.

  5. Daniel Goldberg - November 2, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    Frank,

    Yes, the libertarian will say that, but there are some serious problems with the arguments. In the first place, there is a very serious problem of asymmetrical information. Contrary to merevaudevillian’s argument, recalls do not “solve” the problem in any way, shape, or form, because by the time the recall is issued, often enough, consumers have been hurt or have been killed.

    Indeed, a strong regulatory body is one (though not the only means) of trying to resolve the problem of asymmetrical information. Ideally, we’d like to prevent disasters from occurring, rather than simply reacting to minimize the harm once it has already done so.

    Note, this is not to deny market forces have some role to play in regulating manufacturer behavior. This strikes me as trivially true. But the notion that the industry should self-regulate and that that is sufficient to minimize the harm and strike a morally satisfactory (note, not efficient, but morally satisfactory) balance between safety and price is absolutely belied by the weight of history.

  6. merevaudevillian - November 2, 2007 at 2:57 pm

    Daniel, I agree to a large extent about the distinction about “solving” problems and prevention. But I wonder if it’s not the case that consumers remain ill-informed because they rely upon the government to do so, and the government, even in its best attempts, would be more inefficient than the market’s own policing. For instance, we can chalk up the increased recalls to correlative decreased consumer product testing, but it’s certainly the case that many private toy manufacturers (such as Melissa & Doug) are ensuring customers of their own products’ safety, regardless of government testing. But Canada, which generally has greater government regulation than the United States (though I express no knowledge of their consumer products inspections), also has experienced identical recalls as the United States.

    Being no strict adherent to law-and-economics, I wholly accept a distinction between “efficient” and “morally satisfactory.” But I wonder if, in our zeal to achieve the best moral result, we’re too ready to rely upon remarkably substantively, not economically, inefficient ways of protecting consumers in order to avoid the economic efficiency side of the equation, which is never morally ideal… but de facto may provide a more moral result than the “morally satisfactory” regulation.

  7. Daniel Goldberg - November 2, 2007 at 3:15 pm

    MV,

    I don’t deny that there could well be an increased role for commercial forces in correcting the asymmetries of information. Nor do I deny the possibility that government, “in its best attempts,” would be more more inefficient that the market’s “best efforts” at self-policing.

    Two points are relevant here: Frank’s critique is at least in part that government has gotten nowhere near its “best attempts” in correcting for these asymmetries. Moreover, abstract notions of what the industry’s “self-policing” might look like are of little use absent analysis of the incentives for the industry to self-police. This is why the distinction between morality and efficiency is so crucial. Where a policy — say, of less-than-vigorous self-policing — is efficient but unethical, what reason is there under a straight micro analysis for the firm to more vigorously police?

    Sure, in an ideal world, it is plausible to argue that the market’s best efforts at self-policing might be superior to the government’s best efforts at self-policing, but the world we live in does not resemble that ideal. More so, it has not resembled that world over the past hundred years.

    I’m not sure I understand why you claim that the economically efficient behavior may “de facto” provide a more moral result than the ‘morally satisfactory’ behavior. Ex hypothesi, the claim is that the economically efficient behvaior is certainly not coextensive with the morally sufficient behavior, and has historically been divergent.

    Some kinds of efficient behaviors may produce policies and behaviors we judge as ethical. Indeed, often enough, this is the case. But there are also no shortage of scenarios in which the descriptive claim that a regulatory-market balance is efficient seems to fall short of normative assessments. My basic claim is that this is precisely one of those scenarios, and a major part of the reason for that is the terrible asymmtries of information as to these consumer products.

    I am certainly open to market-based suggestions for resolving these asymmtries, but the problem is that there seems little incentive, as you point out, for firms to spontaneously do so by themselves. In the absence of these incentives, I see little alternative to mandates.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress